The UN Bombing, Conspiracy Theorizing, and the Failure of Perspective

[markses]

First, I'd like to apologize to all those who were trying to formulate an answer last night to the grisly murder of Mr. Berg. I admit here that the visual so moved me that I was rash, and insulted several of those who were speculating on these events by valuing that speculation negatively. Namely, I labelled it a breach of decorum, and called those participating in such speculation "hobbyists." This was wrong of me. The speculations were often serious and informed, and were - for the most part - aimed at making sense of the event. It was more a reflection on my horror of the action than it was a legitimate judgment of those thinking through it.

That said, I would like to draw our attention back to the bombing of the UN facilities in Baghdad in August of 2003. The act was so unspeakable, and so seemingly contrary to the interests of Iraqis, that many here saw a darker force at work. Much speculation circulated, a good deal of it prefaced by the perennial conspiracy question: Qui bono? Who benefits? It was clear to many people that the only force to benefit from the shocking action was the Coalition Provisional Authority, the war party here at home, and the Bush Administration - supposing these can even be considered three distinct entities. Qui bono? It was clearly designed to show the savagery of the insurgents. Qui bono? It would strengthen support for the war at home. Qui bono? It would require that the European powers get involved. Thus went the theorizing.

But the effect was the reverse. Rather than an ill-conceived move or a move that would benefit the Bush Administration, the UN bombing proved to be one of the most effective terrorist actions in the history of modern warfare. It caused the UN to flee Iraq, basically isolating the CPA, and thereby increasing its stature as dictating and occupying power. The UN bombing - for all its horror (and that morning I quoted the Bible for the first time in years when I posted Matthew 5.9 in honor of the murdered Sergio Vieira de Mello) - accomplished something important for the insurgency. It was a brilliant piece of long-term planning.

So here we are again. We see an event in the murder of Mr. Berg that seemingly does little but support the CPA, the war party, and the Bush Administration. We see speculations similar to those surrounding the UN bombing. And it all seems so damn clear:Qui bono?Qui bono?Qui bono?

And yet. We might ask not about the message of the Berg video, but rather about its function. The Berg video seems designed to function in a very specific and local way. Does it shock the world? Yes. As did the UN bombing. Does it seem barbarous and cruel? Yes. As did the UN bombing. But does it have a function like the UN bombing? Perhaps. Perhaps the video is designed to move every contractor who doesn't have to be in Iraq out of Iraq. Like the UN and Red Cross bombings, the Berg video seems designed to move people out. "If we catch you on the road," it says, "Not only will we kill you, we will slaughter you in the worst way imaginable, and we'll show your family! Now get the fuck out of here!" That's the function.

So why do we fail to see this simple, if brilliant, function. The US perspective is too caught up in domestic politics. We lay a veil of domestic concerns over every event that we see coming out of Iraq. So, rather than the relatively simple deterrent function of the Berg video, we see its effects on the current domestic scandal. We almost can't help to see it. Yet with a slight shift of perspective, the question Qui bono? takes on a different light. Or rather, it ceases to be refracted through our domestic partialities. And so we see the first rumblings, the first creaking movements of the great machine the video has set in motion:

Fear for Reconstruction As Contractors Flee Baghdad

Yes, qui bono. But these acts are not messages. They are machines.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Great post on the details..on the emotional aspects

I've been here long enough to know that when upsetting things happen...people will get upset.....9/11, Enron, Wellstone's death...the 02 mid terms...the main thing is to clean up the blood after the fact...move on..and continue to use DU to its highest potential as a force for information.

There's a reason this site slows down to a crawl during a high news cycle...it's the one place on the internet where you can go and within MOMENTS of any event occurring..there will be hundreds of posts, links and even some GENUINE experts informing us all.

[Solomon]

2. You make great points but the problem I have is with the way the

Bush administration immediately jumps on it for advantage. There's absolutely no proof yet that this is al qaeda, yet everyone assumes that it is.

Why does everything that happens have to stink to high heaven? There's always a fucking cloud around it isn't it? Look at this case, FBI questioning, dad on the enemies list, you name it. We have identified more coincidences with the stink of this administration all over it in three years than you would think would only happen over a lifetime.

Unfortunately, I have reached a point with the present assholes in power, that unless proved otherwise, I'm suspicious of every stinking thing that happens.

[TomNickell]

4. Not a smart move, Solomon...

Depend on the White House to use whatever sleazy tactics are available to further their interests. (At this point it looks like other parts of the Government aren't necessarily following the WH marching orders--notice the contradictory information coming from the uniformed military, the State Department and CIA.)

But, why think that the White House -creates- bad news just because they deal with it unethically?

That just makes no sense.

[markses]

5. I agree here

We have to be very careful about the distinction between reading the events and reading the discourse that emerges from the events. Now, I don't want to draw these distinctions too finely: the discourse emerging from the events in Iraq ARE the events themselves. But just because the WH is able to turn an event this way and that doesn't mean that there aren't other forces turning the event this way and that. It is the struggle between those articulations that leads to the effect. The problem, as I see it, is that we become obsessed with the US efforts to derive a meaning from an event, while remaining generally blind to the way others are deriving and producing meaning from it. UN bombing would be a key example in this case.

[Solomon]

24. Ok Ok. All the shit this administration has done are mere

coincidences. That's all they are, just coincidences. I stand corrected.

I'll say it again. I have not seen one single shred of evidence that al qaeda committed 9-11, much less the Berg killing.

That's all I'm saying. Did I say that Bush cabal committed the Berg killing? No. I did not. I'm talking about how quick we are to assign blame to a whole people.

I'll say this again too. Every fucking thing this sick administration does is suspect. What this translates to is that I don't necessarily believe the "official" story that comes out. Someone here says this is not a "smart" move. It's not a "move" at all, just what I see from all the fucking coincidences since December 2000.

[markses]

40. Where you get the idea

that I'm claiming everything is a coincidence, I cannot imagine. Certainly not from the post you responded to, since it neither claims nor implies anything of the sort.

I can only fathom one possible reason for your coincidence statement: It is a ready go-to response for anyone who questions (in any fashion whatsoever) the immediate leap to conspiracy. "No conspiracy, you say? I suppose it is all a coincidence!" This response becomes cookie cutter and pro forma. In some cases it works; in some cases it doesn't, since it is not a specific response, but a one-size-fits-all response. I would suggest that it doesn't work in this case. I'm arguing about the frameworks of understanding that determine our perceptions, and suggesting that one framework has trumped all the others. None of this has anything to do with conspiracies or coincidences.

[TomNickell]

3. "Hobbyists"

Markses,
A thoughtful post, but you accept too much blame.

There were thoughtful posts on this. There were also a lot of nonsense from Bozo 'hobbyists'. The same people who were very sure that Bush had blown up the Space Shuttle and the UN building in Iraq, caused the earthquake in Iran, and shot Jesse James.

I don't understand the motivations of these people, but the characterization as 'hobbyist' is as good a description as I have heard.

It never really took very much perspective to realize that horrific violence in Iraq was the last thing the Bush admin wanted.

Or that the argument 'Qui bono?' is a logicall fallacy.

[stickdog]

14. For the record:

Florida Voter Rolls: They Knew It or They Blew It.
9/11: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Flight 93: They Knew it or They Blew It.
Bin Laden Family 9/12-9/14 Exit Flights: They Knew It or They Blew It.
WTC Asbestos: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Anthrax: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Patriot Act: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Total Information Awareness: They Knew It or They Blew It.
CAPPS II Terrorist Helping "No fly" List: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Assasination Futures Market: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Fraud-o-Matic Voting Machines: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Osama's Getaway: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Depleted Uranium: They Knew it or They Blew it.
WMDs: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Cheney's Millions of Halliburton Stock Options: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Poppy's Carlyle Group War Profiteering: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Valerie Plame: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Gutting the FOIA: They Knew It or They Blew It.
The 9/11 Commission: They Knew It or They Blew It.
UN Bombing: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Medicare PharmCorp Plundering: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Biggest Export = Jobs: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Enron (& other corporate insider) Scams: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Hedge Fund Scams: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Energy Policy: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Three Rounds of Budget Busting Tax Breaks: They Knew It or They Blew It.
False Employment Data: They Knew it or They Blew It.
Cutting Veterans Benefits: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Destoying Reservists' Moral and Enrollment: They Knew It or They Blew It.
Iraqi Prison Abuses: They Knew It or They Blew It.

How often can you accept limitless incompetence as an excuse?

Florida White Collar Riot: They staged it.
Supreme Court Decision: Supremely Bad Law
California "Energy Crisis": They staged it.
Wellstone: Pilot incapacitation makes more sense than pilot incompetence
The "Dirty Bomber" vs. 9/11 Family CSPAN Misdirection: They staged it.
Saddam Statue Celebration: They staged it.
Mission Accomplished: They staged it.
The Arnie Recall: They staged it.

That's all. They didn't bring down the shuttle. Why do I think this? Well, it's a little thing called an legitimate INVESTIGATION. Maybe you've heard of it? They were once part of our federal executive oversight, don't you know? Nor did they hire the DC sniper. Once again, there was a little thing called a trial.

[DemonFighterLives]

6. Excuse this hobbyist

Maybe I am losing it, but the Bush Regime had the most to gain from 9/11, wars for oil and the bombing of the UN and Red Cross. The UN is irrelevent to the bushies and we don't need anybody snooping around our nasty war. I agree with Solomon. There is never any proof of Al Qaeda complicity.
Just saw an Iraqi on Aaron Brown show state that he believes that America made up the name zarqawi(sp)

[goodhue]

7. hear, hear!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1577936

[markses]

9. I will admit that there are some bizarre facts

surrounding Mr. Berg's murder. I would also suggest - suggest! - that we continue to read such facts through the prism of domestic political concerns, and that we view domestic actors as the only real actors in the area.

I am not trying to debunk anything, or even openly dispute specifics. I am merely suggesting that this event has a function that is distinctly favorable to the insurgency in Iraq, however it may appear otherwise in the framework of domestic political concerns in the United States.

[markses]

8. If you can't see how the UN bombing was an

unbelievably effective local and long-term plan for the insurgency, I'm not sure what I can do to help. The collapse of US sovereignty in Iraq is directly tied to lack of minimum security and increase of international isolation. None of that is a benefit for the Bush Administration. It is, rather, an utter calamity.

[stickdog]

12. BushCo is muscle, markses, not Machiavelli.

Now the UN certainly fits in Karl Rove's agenda (getting Bush reelected) now that the true quagmiric dimensions of Iraq are becoming evident.

However, for the Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Cheney neocon hardcores, the UN is nothing but a nuisance in our newest long term protectorate. And Kerry's potential temporary rise to the throne, while inconvenient, certainly does not trump the profit to be made by US taxpayers continuing to throw billions their (mil/intel/oil/def. contractor) way trying to solve the insoluble.

The only thing that could foul this up is a way out (read: UN), as far as these guys are concerned.

[markses]

16. I suppose if you start from a particular axiom

everything follows.

Or, as the geeks say, garbage in, garbage out.

[stickdog]

17. Look it's as simple as this.

War profiteers profit from war.
Iraqi destablization ensures war, one way or another.
Therefore, war profiteers profit from Iraqi destabilization.

Where's the "garbage" in this syllogism?

Continuing, oil mongerers profit from mongering oil.
Iraqi destablization ensures a strong, continued US military presence in Iraq.
A strong, continued US military presense in Iraq ensures than the US can control Iraqi oil (and threaten to control Saudi oil, as well).
Therefore, oil mongerers also profit from Iraqi destabilization.

[markses]

18. Even if I were to accept your major premise

Your minor premise is question begging in the extreme. The question is (and this is accepting your major premise just for the sake of argument): Does Iraqi "destabilization" ensure war? Or, one could ask, does this particular kind of war follow necessarily from what you are calling "destabilization"? In other words, can these particular war profiteers continue to profit from this particular war with further destabilization. Your minor premise is a causal claim that needs to be proved in its own right (and the claim at issue, I might add); it also misses the variations among particulars.

Here are the competing claims as I see them:

markses: Iraqi destabilization doesn't benefit the Bush Admin BECAUSE it can create a situation that cannot be handled.

stickdog: Iraqi destabilization does benefit the Bush Admin BECAUSE it creates a situation that can be handled.

These are, of course, both enthymemes. The syllogisms would cash out something like this:

markses:

No situations that cannot be controlled (politically and militarily) benefit the Bush Admin
Iraqi destabilization may lead to a situation that cannot be controlled (politically and militarily)
Therefore, Iraqi destabilization may not benefit the Bush Admin

stickdog:
Situations that can be controlled (politically and militarily) benefit the Bush Admin
Iraqi destabilization can be controlled (politically and militarily)
Therefore, etc.

If these are the claims, and I believe they are, then you are trying to sneak the very issue in question into your minor premise without specification.

[stickdog]

19. Who is going to sell whoever is fighting their arms and mercenaries?

Private armies don't make their money by having bake sales.

Is Kerry promising to withdraw from Iraq immediately? If not, will he cut BushCo out of the pie? How? Who will Kerry be cutting in to the pie if he so much as makes an attempt to cut Halliburton, Carlyle, Betchel and DynCorp out?

The only thing that can screw this up for the war profiteers is a viable exit strategy. Luckily for them, that's not even on the table. Nor will it be, as long as the UN keeps its nosey nose out of our imperialistic affairs.

[stickdog]

10. Bush's DISAPPROVAL Rating Had Just Hit a Record High!

"He has committed the crime who profits by it." Seneca

When I make this argument in regard to al Qaeda terra'ists and Saddam loyalists always shooting themselves in the foot (by kicking out the UN so Iraq could be administered so much more equitably under Bremer and Negroponte, for example), I'm often confronted with explanations that go something like this:

"Terrorists don't always act in their long term best interests, you know. In fact, they have a clear, historically demonstrated habit of coming to the rescue of totalitarian regimes whenever jingoist fervor is flagging or it's important to have a believable excuse to crack down on dissenters, or ..."

The point being that these Islamic terra'ists are not only heinous and guilty, but also often too fervently radical in their beliefs to act in the long term interests of either themselves or their causes.

Might I simply suggest that, if you really feel that the Berg beheading is a long term negative effect for BushCo, you might also wish to consider applying this same line of reasoning to them.

You know, guilty as well as self-defeating.

And, for the record, IMHO, the US or its assets bombed the UN.

And how's that huge FBI investigation of the UN bombing going, anyway? Sort of like that anthrax guy, huh? Here's the last I heard (November 2003):

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20031105/5651116s.htm

An example of the frustration experienced by U.S. authorities has been the ongoing FBI investigation into the U.N. bombing.

Within hours of the blast, investigators had recovered the vehicle identification number, manufacturer number and Iraqi license plate attached to the Russian-made truck used in the bombing. In most countries, the recovery of just one of those items would have been a coup, tantamount to a quick and sure resolution.

In the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the rear axle of the truck that held the bomb led agents to the Kansas rental agency where bomber Timothy McVeigh had leased the vehicle. Parts of the truck used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing also linked terror suspects to a rental agency. In Iraq, the gold mine of vehicle evidence yielded little immediate payoff because Iraqi vehicle records are in disarray.

Of course, there has been some recent news that has touched on the subject as well:

http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=255&sid=198628

Last month, Ramcharan told the U.N. Human Rights Commission _ the global body's top watchdog _ that he wanted more scrutiny of the situation in Iraq.

The 53-nation commission, of which the United States and Britain are members, monitored Iraq for years when Saddam Hussein was in power, but the issue has been dropped since the U.S.-led invasion last year.

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Sergio Vieira de Mello was among those killed in the August bombing, and Ramcharan took over temporarily as U.N. rights chief. The new high commissioner, Canada's Louise Arbour, is due to start her job in July.

And this:

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/lateststories/index.ssf?/base/international-13/1084127041324100.xml

Karpinski said the decision to cancel Bronze Star awards was yet another blow to an already demoralized brigade, which was stretched thin across Iraq while handling some of the Army's toughest tasks.

"This will contribute in a large way to the morale of the soldiers who placed their lives on the line every day and survived, despite often seemingly insurmountable obstacles and challenges," she said.

The general, who works as a business consultant in civilian life, said low morale inside the brigade and at Abu Ghraib was no secret. Soldiers "spoke openly about their concerns" to visiting members of Congress and other high-level visitors. Those included occupation chief L. Paul Bremer, U.N.'s top Iraq official Sergio Vieira de Mello, who was killed in a bombing last August, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

And this:

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/deen.php?articleid=2557

Salim Lone, a former spokesman for Under-Secretary-General Sergio Vieira de Mello, who died in a suicide bombing in Iraq last August, says that greater involvement of UN staff should only flow from a new Security Council initiative that would launch a new political and security mission independent of U.S. control. "Such a Security Council involvement should be the pre-requisite for the return of UN staff. The only way to end this is to convince Iraqis that the international community is determined to ensure that their country becomes a genuinely free nation," he added.

Award-winning journalist Naomi Klein says that 40 percent of U.S.-trained Iraqi soldiers have walked off the jobs, along with their weapons. "There is a way the United Nations can redeem itself: it could choose to join the mutiny," adds Klein author of the best-seller 'No Logo'.

A widely publicized report released last week said the al-Qaeda terrorist group had specifically directed death threats against Annan and his special representative in Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, and that both men have a price on their heads. "Obviously, we take it seriously, and we will have to take precautions and then carry on with my life and my work. And that's what we're going to do," Annan told reporters.

Carina Perelli, director of the U.N.'s Electoral Assistance Division, who made a preliminary visit to Iraq last month, told reporters after returning that "violence during the electoral process had to be minimized, and candidates should not be intimidated."

Because of security conditions, she said, the United Nations would have to rely on US forces for protection during the election processes. Perelli said it would take eight months to complete the technical work required to hold a vote in Iraq.

[markses]

11. My point, once again

Is that the UN bombing was IN EFFECT a net plus for the insurgents to the extent that it has led to a precipitous decline of coalition credibility, and the virtual collapse of any US justification for sovereignty in the face of international isolation. Do I make a deduction here that they could have planned it for their own benefit. yes. Is it possible that "terrorists" can be both guilty and in error with respect to long term interests. Yes. Is it the case here. I don't think so. So?

I have no idea what your links are designed to illustrate or demonstrate, but this may be because I don't occupy the same world of connections that you do.

[tom_paine]

13. He's implying Bush whacked out de Mello

and that they are tanking the investigation the way they tanked the Anthrax Assassin investigation.

I don't know. Circumstantial, of course, we have no more chance of learning the truth than a 1978 Soviet.

But I see something...20% chance maybe it went down like this.

[markses]

15. Oh, I understood the implication

I just don't think it amounted to an illustration or a demonstration.

But, since - according to your account - we are in an environment where illustration and demonstration (or at least demonstration) are no longer possible forms of argument, I suppose implication will have to do.

[tom_paine]

48. Not exactly your ideal situation

Don't blame the messenger.

[markses]

49. No blame a-tall

Far be it from me to strut around here like some deranged Habermasian.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Is it valid to lump the UN and Red Cross bombings together?

I take your point about the UN - its presence helped legitimize the CPA (and the UN continues to work with it, in the form of Brahimi).

But the bombing of the Red Cross wasn't so beneficial for insurgents. They had been in Iraq since 1980, as a humanitarian organization. But of course they also inspect the prisons. When they were bombed, and the end of October, was in the middle of the time when the photos we have now seen were being taken.

[markses]

21. Well, right

I suppose the thing could go either way. The bombing of the Red Cross certainly helped the American ability to act with impunity, but it is my argument that such impunity (basically a symptom of isolation) is precisely what causes the growing power of the insurgency and the collapsing image of American authority. From that perspective, it is not harmful long-term to the insurgents efforts. Quite the contrary.

[Solomon]

25. Well, Bush is also bankrupting the american economy too, is he not?

That's definitely not in america's interest, but he's doing it anyway isn't he?

You make the assumption that everything Bush does is intended to be in america's interest. I'm sorry, but I've reached the point where I see the assholes doing what is in their favor, fuck america.

Look up the Bush family. They been arms merchants all through their history. They stir up wars and sell weapons. Congress had to declare a special act against Bush's grandaddy for dealing with the Nazi's. If you go further back, you will find the family connected to the Guy Fawkes plot in England to blow up the parliament. Their name was Percy then, which, when they came to america they changed to Pierce.

Now, don't get me started on Saudi Arabia. That's a subject no one wants to talk about. Do you know that the Saudi princes are the richest individuals in the world? Do you know who their brokers are?
You goddamned right, the Bushes. The Bushes broker the oil they sell to us, and the Bushes broker weapons sales to them, which of course, wink wink, they can sell to others. I wonder how much stock in america the saudis bought up? At least we know they bought a hell of a lot of airplane stock before 9-11 don't we?

You know Bush Sr. is Mr. Cia, Mr. black ops. If you needed say 20 arabs to pull off a little black ops operation, where would you get them from? Iraq, Iran, Syria? Hell no. I got a little hint for you, the "hijackers" were Saudi Arabians. Or at least that's what they told us. A business partnership with the world's richest people can certainly come in handy, can't it.

Arrrgh. Let me stop. I appologize. I know how much this stuff upsets people who are so much smarter than us "hobbyists".

[markses]

26. I make absolutely NO such assumption

I argue that the Bush Administration does what is in the interest of the Bush Administration. The way you attempt to turn my clear words around here is indicative of the viciousness of your argumentative manner.

That said, you continue to harp on the issue of "hobbyists," as if I haven't openly apologized for it on this very thread. Would you like me to send you flowers? Perhaps a digital image of self-flaggelation will quiet your resentment? What more do I need to do in terms of contrition so that you'll cease the hostility and sarcastic resentment on the "hobbyists" line, at least when we are trying to have a discussion (what you grumble to yourself in the dark is none of my concern).

[Solomon]

29. I know nothing about your previous posts. I know nothing about

your use of the word "hobbyist". I saw Tom Nickells use the word. And I think the word is overbroad, and implies that all people who question the official line are somehow conspiracy nuts who sit around thinking up things as a "hobby."

As for the viciousness of my argumentative manner, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Apparently you are bringing baggage with you here from some other conversation you had with others.

Just because I disagree with you has nothing to do with viciousness and hostility. Those are things You are bringing to the conversation.

And NO, I don't believe that everything that happens is a conspiracy, but I'm not so stupid as to just believe what I'm told by the "news" either.

Why don't you give me a link to your other post, since that seems to be such an epiphany for you. Maybe then I will understand why you think you need to appologize.

[markses]

32. You say that I assume X

(that Bush acts for the benefit of the US)

I neither say that nor imply it.

Neither do I believe everything I see in the news.

Finally, I'm sorry that I assumed you had actually read the initial post in this thread, where the word "hobbyist" first appears. I assumed you were referring, once again, to the initial post in the thread. Stupid me...

[Solomon]

37. I'll say it again in case you missed it the first time. You made some

great points in your post. :)

[9215]

22. Wolfowitz stated that UN bombing benefited

the US by changing the "atmosphere" in New York (UN home).


<http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/04/sprj.irq.main/index.html>

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Thursday the Bush administration has been pushing for months for a new U.N. resolution to internationalize the force in Iraq, but it took the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad to change the "atmosphere in New York."

Wolfowitz made the surprising comments after testifying to congressional leaders on Capitol Hill, and on the same day the Washington Post reported on the apparent change of course the administration has taken in dealing with the United Nations.

The newspaper essentially said Secretary of State Colin Powell and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, teamed up to overcome Pentagon objections to a U.N. force for Iraq. Both men later called the report inaccurate.

Wolfowitz acknowledged that "any plan has got to adjust to the reality as you find it on the ground," but he also disputed any notion that the Bush administration has resisted international help.

[markses]

27. Now Wolfowitz is a reliable source?!?

Given the objective results of the bombing, I think we can safely assume that Wolfowitz is spinning desperately. Far be it from me, in any case, to use the words of war criminal and uber-liar Paul Wolfowitz to support my argument! I much like it as negative support: if Wolfowitz says it was a benefit to the US, you can good and goddamn well assume it was a spectacular defeat. Unless you take Mr. Wolfowitz at his word? I certainly don't.

[9215]

28. This needs closer examination.

What this article shows IMO is that Wolfy, and, by way of parenthesis, the Bushies "believed" that this attack would help get the UN on board for internationalizing the US role in the Iraq conflict.

That the bombing of the UN did not in fact have the effect Wolfy expected is not relevant. The belief that it would is what is important.

This is in keeping with Wolfy and other Bushies Straussian principles of power brokering. They believe that the way to garner support is to create a mutual enemy that they and their desired constituency can focus on. The "Pearl Harbor like attack" of 9/11 did this to a large extent, whereas it seems it failed in the UN attack.

[markses]

30. They either believed it, or it was the desperate spin

I tend toward the latter, you tend toward the former.

That Wolfowitz says X does not indicate or even suggest to me that Wolfowitz believes X.

[9215]

34. That's why I compared his

statement about the UN bombing to 9/11. These guys think that they can get people to back them through these tactics. Remember the Bali bombing? That brought the Aussies on board the Iraq war wagon. Before the bombing in Spain US officialdom was saying that it would take a bombing in Europe similar to 9/11 to get the European community to see we were all fighting a common enemy, blah, blah.


Good topic.

[9215]

36. Here is a link to Spain bombing:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/15/international/europe/15POLI.html>


Only last week several senior members of the administration said they fully expected that his conservatives would emerge victorious. In fact, months ago a senior adviser to Mr. Bush predicted that should a terrorist attack occur in Europe, it would probably drive the Europeans closer to the United States and its approach to the campaign against terror, not away from it.

[markses]

41. The point being?

That the Administration attempts to articulate their interests with the interests of others? I'm pretty sure I knew this when I got up this morning.

[9215]

42. Back to your original question: "Qui Bono"?

In this case, as I've pointed out, Wolfy thought the US would benefit from UN attack with the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" syndrome. Ditto for those who thought that a bombing in Europe would bring that region on board the US terror war. The bombing in Bali served as Australia's 9/11 and the money trail led back to Saudi Arabia.

[9215]

43. And, I might add,

the bombing in Spain, at least by some investigating it, was traced to Right-Wing Italian elements.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1309661#1309719

[markses]

45. That link says nothing of the kind, as I read it

The spokesperson was characterizing a pattern of attacks that attempt to shift blame on to other groups. That's the "strategy of tension," which is - of course - well-known and not restricted to Italian fascists and their running war with the Red Brigade. The bombing, then, was not "traced to Right-Wing Italian elements" by anybody (except, perhaps, in the imagination and mysterious world of connections), so much as the spokesperson used a well-known term to characterize what he took to be the bombing strategy for the press. That these two propositions are worlds apart should be clear.

[markses]

44. And again

It's not clear that Wolfowitz thought that. Even with respect to the "Europe should join closer with us" statements prior to Madrid 311, it may just as well be the case that Wolfowitz was trying to produce such a response by putting it out into the public. Function, not message. Machines, I say.

Your position relies on the notion that what Wolfowitz says corresponds to his true belief. My position says that Wolfowitz speech is primarily rhetorical, aimed to produce effects, and has no necessary correspondence to what he believes, or the Administration believes.

Wolfowitz says "Europe will align more closely with us in the events of a terrorist attack." Your position would paint this as a belief of Wolfowitz. My position would take this statement as a function designed to produce effects; Wolfowitz could just as easily believe the opposite when he says this. In fact, he may be saying it BECAUSE he believes the opposite, and he is trying to bring the more favorable result into being. Rhetorical. Function. Machines.

[9215]

46. article doesn't specify Wolfy only a "senior adviser. nt

[markses]

47. Whatever

The point still applies, since the point is not necessarily tied to the person. I don't read statements as necessarily corresponding to a belief, especially in politics.

[9215]

50. Well, these guys are great believers in Strauss

but you don't think that their statements are tied to those beliefs?

Methinks you are trying to dissappear the obvious and replace it with the much too convoluted. We have multiple corroborations starting with Brezizinski and PNAC down to the UN and Spain bombings indicating clearly what they thought the reactions of the victims would be to attacks by terrorists and you claim that there statements don't "neccessarily" correspond to that belief. :eyes:

[markses]

52. That's correct

Their statements don't necessarily correspond to their beliefs. As far as the belief in Strauss, that is also functional rather than interpretive. The terrorist attack presents an opportunity for an alliance, but an alliance does not necessarily or even probably follow (otherwise Strauss would be an utter fool, which he was not). The correct reading of the Straussian system still requires one to pragmatically forge those lines of alliance, rather than to expect them to emerge automatically. From this perspective, the consistent repetition that an alliance will be strengthened or transformed would constitute that process of forging it. That is, they don't necessarily believe what they say about any specific alliance emerging. When they say it will emerge, they are trying to get it to emerge. It's called rhetoric. Goes back past Aristotle.

Now, one could also argue that such a system would also allow one to creating the conditions for the forging of alliances (i.e., engineering the bombings), but this is not necessarily the case, and must be weighed against the various possibilties that could ensue. Put plainly, it is much less risky to argue for an alliance than it is to bomb a building (or a train, for that matter) - and these kinds of calculations play into the system.

[9215]

53. Goddamn youu are so fucking smart, you forget to think

What you are trying to do here is confuse the obvious with the well laid on esoteric.

Bottom line is that all this BS you are spouting does not refute the fact that after the torture shit we had a bigger ante called the beheading shit and THAT is the "worser of the two evils" and THAT is what the Psy-ops fascists are trying to implant in the Psy-ops subsceptilbe fuckbrains of the American public. And I, by way of parenthesis, know what you are doing and why you are doing it. :bounce:

PS. You try to take me out and you can be assured that numerous officials of both parties from my state and elsewhere are fully aware of my take on this shit and they will be passing it on. Come and try it!!

[PATRICK]

23. Berg's special case muddies the waters

The people who were interrogating and shadowing Berg were Iraqi police aided by the FBI. On the other hand one might think an independent anti-war troublemaker too close to the truth might be left purposely more unprotected than the usual Halliburton Brahman class. One captive was mysteriously released/escaped, a loyal team player welcomed home with flowers, while coincidentally a persecuted schmo gets quickly picked up instead and killed. Sounds like a trade? Great stuff for an unsellable fiction novel.

Did they use him as bait or just to get rid of him or have the job done by US/Iraqi elements themselves? One could speculate endlessly. Even if this loner was exposed there are a lot of messy details, some dealing with that exposure itself. As in the best unsolved conspiracies this one looks unsolvable because the ones who would do any investigating are already involved. This may be one we should revive after November. It is easy to spin scenarios out of this, but more valuable would be just to collect all the data possible. The reporter and family's comments. Berg's work and detentions. Details about the now squelched pictures. I hope someone saved those.

As for the purpose of the resistance, yes it fits and is effective, spurring an exodus newly begun by fear of reprisals for prison mistreatment. The WH is always poised to exploit events for their purpose and some are inevitable. The one that really galls them, a new terrorist attack on the US has not materialized despite deliberate soft-pedaling of preventive measures. Without proof it is enough to know that sure fact. Considering their misjudgments and incompetence and closed loops I don't think they have an easy time planning dirty events with any degree of confidence. Some people here make them look satanically clever and organized, but it's not necessary when the fact is they leave death and disaster in their wake whatever they do.

There are conspiracies and coverups aplenty, but to create a blindingly large fiction to aggrandize one's speculation only obscures the ones we already are barred from investigating and gives them in fact extra cover. Right now one might concentrate on getting AP and others to correct their lite releases that are flawed in their portrayal of Berg and adoption of the Pentagon appraisal.

[HFishbine]

31. Qui Bono?

So, Kerry did it?

[leftofthedial]

33. I don't believe the Berg video is what it is purported to be

it is inauthentic and suspicious in numerous glaring ways:
the victim is clearly already dead when the beheading occurs
the audiotrack is not original with the video
the video itself is highly suspicious--blurry, jumping timestamp
the prison jumpsuit
the very odd-looking "terrorists"
the purported killer identifying himself, but wearing a mask
etc.

This leads to further questions of motive

your points about the UN bombing are well taken, but I think the effects of recent over-publicized killings of mercenaries and contractors on the reconstruction efforts are still speculative.

[gandalf]

35. "this simple, if brilliant, function". That's only one interpretation

When I first heard of the beheading story, I at once thought "so the Iraqis are even crueler than the US, and in order to avoid such cruel crimes, it is certainly illegal, but kind of understandable, if some people see torture as a last resort to avoid even stronger evil."

It sets the torture scandal in perspective, it diminishes it's unique badness. And that not so bad for the US, isn't it?

These incidents are not simple to judge, so it seems appropriate not to believe any explanation too quickly.

[markses]

39. Agreed

That said, there are no interpretations that emerge from outside particular frameworks of understanding. My point in the initial post is that one framework of understanding (US domestic politics) has dominated and directed interpretations on these boards and perhaps even in the US generally, and may thereby screen out interpretations that emerge from other frameworks, such as the local Iraqi situation.

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 12:04:14PM EDT, Thursday, May 13, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
3 days,
11 hours,
55 minutes, and
46 seconds left in our fund drive.
 
This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations 
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.
 
Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[GumboYaYa]

51. Excellent analysis Markses....

We are myopic in America and sometimes at DU. While Bush may gain a temporary benefit in the 24-hour news cycle in teh US, Berg will be long-forgotten and the damage from the prisoner abuse will still remain as the war progresses. The beheading has caused many countries to rethink their role in Iraq. Watch as the "coalition of the willing" falls apart. NATO is already on the sidelines until November. Soon we will be in Iraq by ourselves and GWB will have been proven a fool to the world. Whoever released that video is no friend of George Bush.

[9215]

54. Excellent Psy-ops Gumby.......

You fucked up though....hee, hee. asshole!

"prisoner abuse ain't damage" is is a fucking CRIME!!!

The vid of Berg is now being seen for the BS it is.

Berg is connected to Moussaoui...the only fucking supposed Al Qaeda nailed in 9/11.

Go ahead, play this game out. Take me out. But you will never be able to take out the facts on this.

[anarchy1999]

55. I think you need to read up on the PNAC crowd and the men they

were inspired by. Your analysis has a few flaws. IMHO. All is going according to plan.